As a California resident and voter who remembers all the media hype during 2000 election about Bush winning California, I wonder if the same thing is happening again with Schwarznegger and the recall election.
I remember Senator John McCain even saying one week before the presidential election that Gore would lose California and Bush would win. The polls even showed Bush winning. Yet, Gore won California by a huge margin.
I mean this is the same media after all, who hyped the dot com market and never said anything about it the stocks being overvalued or even talking about the possibility of a crash. We didn't get any of that, except maybe the mainstream media scoffing at the doom and gloomers who said to get out of the market before it crashes.
So let's see ... in March 2000, Nasdaq was at what 5,000 + and today it closed at 1,824.
Does the mainstream media ever get anything right?
Monday, September 29, 2003
I saw "Underworld" on Friday night, and loved it. The critics hated it, and I can see why, but I don't care. Word has definitely gotten around about its suck factor, because there were only about ten people in the theatre.
I think I loved "Underworld" because I love vampire movies. I've seen every single one of them including the original silent screen edition of "Noseferatu", which made weep at the end.
I was googling the movie afterwards, and there's like all this gossip about the movie. At the time the movie was being filmed, Kate Beckinsale was living with the head werewolf guy, Michael Sheen. They also share a daughter Lilly. She probably helped to get him the part.
After filming, Kate breaks up with head werewolf guy Michael and says it was was because they were incompatible.
Months later, Beckinsale ends up engaged to the director of "Underworld" Len Wiseman, who was married to someone else during the filming of the movie.
I wish I'd known all this juicy gossip before I'd seen the movie, because it might have been fun to check out the interaction between the two actors.
I think I loved "Underworld" because I love vampire movies. I've seen every single one of them including the original silent screen edition of "Noseferatu", which made weep at the end.
I was googling the movie afterwards, and there's like all this gossip about the movie. At the time the movie was being filmed, Kate Beckinsale was living with the head werewolf guy, Michael Sheen. They also share a daughter Lilly. She probably helped to get him the part.
After filming, Kate breaks up with head werewolf guy Michael and says it was was because they were incompatible.
Months later, Beckinsale ends up engaged to the director of "Underworld" Len Wiseman, who was married to someone else during the filming of the movie.
I wish I'd known all this juicy gossip before I'd seen the movie, because it might have been fun to check out the interaction between the two actors.
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Maybe I'm depressed because in the process of studying the modern art of Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko, Barnett Newman, Alberto Giacometti, art informel, Jean Fautrier, Jean Dubuffet, Antoni Tapies, Francis Bacon and Lucien Freud, I've had to read up on existentialism.
Reading the philosophy of existentialism will, I'm convinced, depress anyone.
Reading the philosophy of existentialism will, I'm convinced, depress anyone.
Maybe I'm in a bad mood because I saw the ACT production of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses", by Choderlos de Laclos and adapted and directed by Giles Havergal, on Thursday.
When the Glenn Close/John Malcovich version of the movie first came out, I got a weird kind of intuition not to see it, like it was really bad or something. I did end up watching it years later on video, and didn't think it was that bad.
The Annette Bening/Colin Firth version which was titled "Valmont" didn't quite have the menacing feeling that came across in the Close/Malcovich version, but it was better at portraying The Vicomte as a more charming rogue.
"Cruel Intentions" with Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillipe, and Reese Witherspoon, was the updated teenage angst version of the story. And although enjoyable, there was something missing in translating the story to a modern day upper class prep school in NYC.
I also saw a play version by Christopher Hampton performed by some friends of mine a few years ago at City College, and they weren't the best but the playwright's adapation was amazing.
In ACT's production, Giles Avergal returned to the original version of the book, which was written in the forms of letters. Giles Havergal did a fantastic adaptation of Graham Greene's novel "Travels with My Aunt" for ACT a few years ago, and he did a good job with this book as well, although as some critics have pointed out he did simplify the plot probably more than was necessary.
The actors were great, and I thought this was the best version I've seen of the relationship between Vicomte de Valmont and the Marquise de Merteuil. The two were lovers first, and the play showed that the Marquise was more in love with him that she was willing to admit.
As an audience, you have to know that the two were lovers first so you can understand the extent to which their love, their attraction turned into pure hatred and evil. Havergal's adaption shows that evolution in its entirety and the actors give a great performance as well.
What's missing is the more seemy side of Valmont's debauchery as well the more treacherous aspects of the Marquise' libertine games.
It is disturbing to see love used so wantonly, so cruelly, with little regard to people or to feelings, but I think that was the whole point of Choderlos de Laclos' book. The kind of behaviour of portrayed in the book is common fare on soap operas, although not quite as elegantly done as the original french version.
But despite the shocking nature of the story, in the end the play and the book is a morality tale, and all the bad people get what they deserve. And it is maybe the ending which is the most disturbing part of the play and book. After all when in the real world do the villians ever get punished?
When the Glenn Close/John Malcovich version of the movie first came out, I got a weird kind of intuition not to see it, like it was really bad or something. I did end up watching it years later on video, and didn't think it was that bad.
The Annette Bening/Colin Firth version which was titled "Valmont" didn't quite have the menacing feeling that came across in the Close/Malcovich version, but it was better at portraying The Vicomte as a more charming rogue.
"Cruel Intentions" with Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillipe, and Reese Witherspoon, was the updated teenage angst version of the story. And although enjoyable, there was something missing in translating the story to a modern day upper class prep school in NYC.
I also saw a play version by Christopher Hampton performed by some friends of mine a few years ago at City College, and they weren't the best but the playwright's adapation was amazing.
In ACT's production, Giles Avergal returned to the original version of the book, which was written in the forms of letters. Giles Havergal did a fantastic adaptation of Graham Greene's novel "Travels with My Aunt" for ACT a few years ago, and he did a good job with this book as well, although as some critics have pointed out he did simplify the plot probably more than was necessary.
The actors were great, and I thought this was the best version I've seen of the relationship between Vicomte de Valmont and the Marquise de Merteuil. The two were lovers first, and the play showed that the Marquise was more in love with him that she was willing to admit.
As an audience, you have to know that the two were lovers first so you can understand the extent to which their love, their attraction turned into pure hatred and evil. Havergal's adaption shows that evolution in its entirety and the actors give a great performance as well.
What's missing is the more seemy side of Valmont's debauchery as well the more treacherous aspects of the Marquise' libertine games.
It is disturbing to see love used so wantonly, so cruelly, with little regard to people or to feelings, but I think that was the whole point of Choderlos de Laclos' book. The kind of behaviour of portrayed in the book is common fare on soap operas, although not quite as elegantly done as the original french version.
But despite the shocking nature of the story, in the end the play and the book is a morality tale, and all the bad people get what they deserve. And it is maybe the ending which is the most disturbing part of the play and book. After all when in the real world do the villians ever get punished?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)